Policy analysis is part of the first step in attempting to address the thesis question. In order to efficiently perform the analysis, policy models will be used to better understand the progression of the Clayoquot Land Use Decision. Models are used to describe and generate explanations of, or predictions about, social or political phenomena (Salazar & Alper 1996, 384). Models are representations of selected elements in which political actors are able to choose tactics based on displays of how power is configured. Power may be found to be widely distributed or concentrated in a polity. As a result, political actors estimate where they are likely to have leverage, based on the information provided by a model analysis, and utilize resources to influence particular targets. These models are used as strategic resources (ibid.). People acting on the basis of models will target particular actors and institutions and employ particular tactics (Salazer & Alper 1996, 387).
The following is a summary of both Kingdon’s and Pross’ policy models based on the graphic display in the Appendix (see Appendix: Models).
5.1 Kingdon’s Decision-making Model
Kingdon’s decision-making model enables an analysis of a policy to be broken down into specific, separate components in order to better understand the process which led to the policy decision. By applying his three streams in the analysis, the researcher is then able to realize why or why not a policy was influenced or developed. The following is a summary of the structure of Kingdon’s decision-making model.
The three streams that determine whether or not a policy is put in place are: 1) the Problem Stream; 2) the Policy Stream; and 3) the Political Stream. These streams (see Appendix: Models - Kingdon’s) must merge to create a “window of opportunity” in order to impact a public policy or change an already existing one.
The following details each of the streams that make up Kingdon’s Decision-Making Model.
1) The Problem Stream: indicators show that there is a problem.
Kingdon states that there has to be some kind of problem that emerges. Quite often, when looking specifically at environmental issues, it is of crisis proportions (i.e. global warming, hole in ozone, acid rain, etc.). There is a sudden deep concern for an issue because the public is made aware of the problem; the problem emerges out of unforeseen awareness that something is wrong.
2) The Policy Stream [solutions]: Policy communities are composed of specialists in a given policy area such as health, housing, environmental protection, criminal justice. The policy communities interact with one another and exist independent of such political events as changes of administration and pressure from legislators’ constituencies’ (Kingdon 1984, 123-4). It is within these policy communities that the second stream can be found. The second stream must be in place; there actually has to be a policy. Someone has to already be thinking about a solution within the policy community (Kingdon 1995, 172). If there is not a solution, then the widow of opportunity will not open because the policy makers do not want to be involved in something they cannot address.
The selection of a policy is very deliberate. Through the imposition of selected ideas, some policies are selected out for survival while others are discarded (Kingdon 1995, 200). The criteria in deciding which ones are sifted out include technical feasibility, acceptability with the values of community members, and the knowledge of future constraints - including budget constraints, public acceptability, and politicians’ receptivity (ibid.).
3) The Political Stream [the political will]: “Flowing along independently of the problems and policy streams is the political stream, composed of such things as public mood, pressure group campaigns, election results, partisan or ideological distributions in government, and changes of administration” (Kingdon 1984, 152).
The third stream, the political stream, can also be referred to as the political will stream; the desire to do something about the issue. Because you might have a very serious problem, and in fact there may already be a solution, you have to have the political will. In order to get it into the public realm where it is actually going to be created as policy, where government cares enough to do something about the issue, you have to have the political will. Sometimes this can be driven by the sheer magnitude of the problem. An alarming problem can cause enough public opinion that the political stream may worry that inaction could cause political problems.
Within the political stream are the participants in the policy process. The participants include levels of government, stakeholders, and interested groups. There is also what Kingdon refers to as the “policy entrepreneur”; a fancy way of describing a politician who takes on a pet interest/issue. The policy entrepreneur brings several key resources into the policy process: their claims to a hearing, their political connections and negotiating skills, and their sheer persistence (Kingdon 1995, 205). The policy of focus may come to light because the politician’s constituents present the issue of concern to them and request action, or because it is of personal interest to the individual politician. The issue is taken on by that one person, who then may go to caucus or to their party and say that the issue is serious enough that it requires address.
The participants within the policy process must keep in mind, throughout the process, that the progress of the three streams may discontinue. This may occur because windows of opportunity can close as abruptly as they open. Two notable reasons for the windows of opportunity to close are a change in the political stream, and a new problem captures the attention of government officials. With this realization, some participants within the policy process, seeking to push their agenda, cannot avoid maintaining a feeling of urgency throughout the process.
It has been established that all three streams have to occur in order to merge at the same time for the window of opportunity to open to influence or create a policy. There is also the fact that the window of opportunity naturally opens and then closes during the cyclical nature of the political system (Kingdon 1995, 166). As well, there is always the potential that a new issue erupts that is critical enough to capture the attention of government officials. It takes a knowledgeable “entrepreneur” to anticipate this moment and capitalize on the potential.
The knowledgeable entrepreneur must also realize that the window of opportunity remains open for a limited amount of time; the duration in which no one can be completely sure (Kingdon 1995, 195). As a result, interested groups and individuals must act when the opportunity presents itself for fear of “missing the boat” altogether.
As mentioned previously, there are times within the political arena that a policy analyst is able to predict when certain occurrences generally occur. These are moments of opportunity that interested groups and individuals would be best served in utilizing. There are also the notable “unpredictable windows” that even the policy entrepreneur is unable to accurately predict resulting in decision-makers scrambling to react. A crisis can potentially best serve an interest or be quite the opposite; hence the term unpredictable.
Kingdon’s decision-making model is useful in that it describes the policy process in three simple streams. The researcher is able to break down any process leading up to a policy decision and decipher questions like: Was there the political will? and Where was it from? In studying the policy process, these questions can be paramount.
5.2 Pross’ Policy Community Model
Pross’ policy community model is designed to identify the various levels of players/actors involved in policy development or change. Policy communities include all actors who have an interest in a policy area, who share a common policy focus, and who help shape policy outcomes (Whitaker 1995, 430).
When looking at Pross’ model one can see that there are numerous actors involved in policy development (see Appendix: Models - Pross’). There is the bureaucracy trying to get their ideas through, and the various levels of government acting in the interests of their own mandate. There is also the pressure from other political parties to pursue other actions, and there is the interested groups at the lower portion of the model. There are the stakeholder groups trying to pressure government to make decisions in their favour. Included are the “interested groups” (as well as interested individuals) who focus only on specific polices that effect them. There are also the pressure groups composed of individuals who come together to get something done then disband once the goal has been accomplished. Finally, there are the interest groups more like Greenpeace; a group that is continually trying to create a whole new ethos in society. This type of interest group not only creates an issue but also creates a whole new social movement in order to get people to think in a new way (Summerville 1999).
One actor in policy development that has not been included by Pross, but has been included in the model, is the media. The media influences policy development by simply presenting the public, politicians, bureaucrats, and policy makers with stories that can potentially become issues (Kingdon 1995, 57). As stated in the literature review, media coverage has clearly had an important role in promoting concern. There is also strong circumstantial evidence that the priorities of policy-makers and the general public are influenced, though not determined, by the issues stressed in news coverage (Fletcher 1992, 180). Groups influence public opinion through advertising, via direct lobbying, and by capturing media attention (Pross 1992, 166). The potential impacts of media coverage is unpredictable and site specific, depending on the issue at hand. For example, the general public is the target of mainstream media. Depending on the issue, be it local, regional, national, or international, the public targets their concern (and perhaps outrage) at the level of government applicable. Private interests, like the energy resources field, may, in response to a media effort, pressure officials from the federal energy department and their counterparts in energy producing provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia to assert their interests (Whitaker 1995, 430). In light of the connection between media and its impacts on policy development, one realizes that media plays a considerable role in public policy. As a result, media holds a place in the policy community showing no connection to one actor over another.
Pross states that one must look at how each of the policy communities interact. Whitaker observes that these policy “communities” have grown up around particular policy areas involving bureaucrats from the federal government, their counterparts in the provincial bureaucracies, and the interested private-sector organizations, including companies, trade associations, and pressure groups (ibid.). In essence, what these communities have accomplished is an expansion of access to relevant information and the establishment of external bases of potential support for specialized bureaucrats in their policy fields. The increase of interaction due to the creation of policy communities has also allowed alliances to be made - as indicated by the crossing over of circles in Pross’ model. These alliances are made when the opportunity arises. When these alliances are no longer useful, they are discontinued. Hence the name “talking chameleons” (penned by Pross); interested groups are capable of changing their colour to suit the issue, unlike political parties.
Pross’ model is also very good at showing the different levels of progression in policy development. The progression, interaction and influence of the various communities are on a site specific basis depending on the issue. The researcher must look at the origins of influences in order to realize where the power is for each policy decision. By applying Pross’ policy communities model, the researcher may realize where the power lies in a policy decision, as well as realize what the chain of events were leading up to the policy decision, realize who came together and what kind of pressure they exerted, and whether there was any success in that pressure.
The above policy analysis portion will aid in understanding the following case study focusing on the Clayoquot Land Use Decision.